--- Peter Beutner p.beutner@gmx.net wrote:
Mike McCormack wrote:
Christian Gmeiner wrote:
Partially implement SetupDiGetClassDevsExA. This
patch bases on
reactos setupapi.dll.
Don't be suprised if your patch isn't accepted.
ReactOS is considered a
dirty reverse engineering project by many, and
Alexandre has rejected
patches using their code before.
I thought they started auditing their code and removing any "dirty" parts? And according to their website this process is nearly done.
btw. using their code as documentation to implement something on wine should be safe nevertheless, shouldn't it?
The fact that some developers work both on
tinykrnl (a self-admitted
'dirty' reverse engineering effort) and ReactOS at
the same time should
be enough to show you that they're walking close
to, or maybe over the
fine line.
Please don't post ReactOS code to wine-patches
again. hm I thought direct code sharing wasn't even possible before because of the different licenses(GPL<->LGPL)?
Only the ReactOS kernel is GPL, other parts have other licences. And they took SETUPAPI from us so it's still licenced under the LGPL.
Am I to understand that if I want SetupDiGetClassDevsExW() and some other APIs I need for the still image system, I need to write them without even looking at the ReactOS code? I think that's unfair, the ReactOS SETUPAPI doesn't look reverse-engineered, everything in there conforms to the MSDN documentation and it's too incomplete to be reverse-engineered. Making such harsh judgements about one API (which they derived from wine and changed a little) just because of the bad reputation of some other parts of ReactOS is wrong, IMO.
So what's the story, are you accepting any ReactOS-derived patches for dlls/setupapi/devinst.c, or do I need to start writing my own?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com